Over at the Design Observer, Andrew Bernheimer is calling Nicolai Ouroussoff to task on his claim that New York is lacking architectural heroes:
"The work and teachings of many of my colleagues is mostly lacking in self-promotion but overflowing with substance. This is what makes them influential and, at times, heroic. But it is also, perhaps, what makes them far less visible to Mr. Ouroussoff. He should be looking more closely."
Oh snap!
Over at the Design Observer, Andrew Bernheimer is calling Nicolai Ouroussoff to task on his claim that New York is lacking architectural heroes:
"The work and teachings of many of my colleagues is mostly lacking in self-promotion but overflowing with substance. This is what makes them influential and, at times, heroic. But it is also, perhaps, what makes them far less visible to Mr. Ouroussoff. He should be looking more closely."
Oh snap!
14 Comments
Bernheimer misses that ouroussoff is more interested in preserving the cult of the starchitect (and own his place within this pantheon) than in lamenting the lack of influential architectural innovators in NYC. Ouroussoff rightly claims that the power-center of starchitecture has shifted from NYC to LA - but perhaps that's the best thing to happen to innovation on the east coast. free from the shameless promotion and creativity-stifling cult of celebrity, maybe the east coast can finally enjoy the level of under-the-radar non-pretentious exploration that midwesterners often enjoy.
Can't help but think that Dr. NO is kinda trolling with this article, daring people to prove him wrong. Either way, it's an effective conversation-starter.
And he's right about all the talent coming out of the West Coast and Europe for the past decade or two. But only New Yorkers are likely to shed any tears over the descendancy of New York. It's a bigger region than that, let's step it up, East Coast.
totally ridiculous nyc-centrist pissing contest....there is clearly a void in the power structure of architecture
Down with the NYTimes!, down with Starchitects!, Down with Obama? Up with the NY nobodies!
Andrew Bernheimer is asking Ouroussoff to look more closely but how close do we need to be to see our leaders and to feel the energy of our up and coming ?
I agree with theOutfit, the NYC (leadership/ideas/starpower) void is obvious.
you know, it's a shame that Hejduk gets lumped in with the others. he was the only true revolutionary of the 5, and the only one that will have died with his integrity and hero status, intact.
you know what, i take some of that back.
this guy is missing the point. if everyone wants to look at these guys now, as opposed to when the NY5 book came out that's one thing, but if you look at that initial body of work, prior to the "cult of celebrity," you'll probably find that it was like a giant wave crashing against the rocks. ground breaking, earth shattering works, were being discussed.
the people and firms mentioned in the piece by andrew, are no doubt talented, i've had at least one or two on a jury, but they evolved in the wake left by these 5; they are the water polishing the jagged shards of those that came before them. i bet dollars to donuts, that those that were educated on the east coast, on that list, would list at least 3 or 4 of the NY5 as influences.
they have not produced anything CLOSE to, in magnitude, to Mask of Medusa or House of Cards, nothing, nada, and i love LTL's work.
kill yr idols
"totally ridiculous nyc-centrist pissing contest"
This isn't about New York centrism. It is not about whether NYC is the best place for architects or architecture (probably not) or whether NYC is a flawed locale for architecture (it has many flaws, without a doubt). It is, more pointedly, a response to NO's claims about New York, and not much else. There are untold numbers of architects practicing around the country who are doing brilliant work, but that wasn't the subject of his column (maybe it should have been?).
My response is pointed towards Ouroussoff's quite obvious lack of curiosity about the more broad architectural community of NYC (including both the academy AND practice), which he specifically targets in this piece. His critique of NY is flawed in particular BECAUSE of this lack of curiosity.
i thought NO was against starchitecture?
nice comments beta. you have convinced me. guess the question is right now is there ANYONE who is influential like that? who comes after REM?
certainly no one in the usa, never mind NY.
...
?
There is no lack of talent in New York but why is the net force of these combined efforts sooo weak? Why is the net force not transforming the profession? Why is there no shared sense of direction or purpose?
The burden in on the architects and not their critics.
"why is the net force of these combined efforts sooo weak?"
How are you measuring "net force"? You should articulate more clearly what you mean. And why would a "shared direction or purpose" be better than multi-faceted, varying ethoses? Architectural culture is better off with more diversity of concept, not less.
The need for "signature buildings" is also a culprit here - what is the measuring stick of impact? Is it the monument to one's own talent? Or is it less physical than that? Or some combination of those two, along with other things?
Part of the problem is the primary measuring tool of "impact" is still the one special building, the big move, not a compendium of smaller, more responsible, and perhaps less visible work.
andrew, can you tell me what "big moves" were implicit in John Hejduk's work or Charlie Gwathmey's? i think there is a fundamental difference between "big moves" and "big ideas." besides that, the book on the NY5 was about their smaller work[s] and their "signature" style was still in an evolutionary stage. does anyone look at the early work of eisenman's houses and see that genesis in the work produced now? i think the both of you are having two different conversations, and both are valid points of view, but i think you are missing the mark a bit. do you think that NO is not aware of those firms making critical steps in the right direction?
do you honestly think that the work they do is not getting enough "airtime" or play in the architectural press? i would hazard to think that the production and publication of architects and architecture has never been as prolific as it is today, and all of those you have cited certainly have benefited from that effort. there are certainly more outlets for young firms than there were 20 or 30 years ago; Princeton Architectural Press with their Pamphlet series has had a great impact on young professionals LTL benefited from that enormously. not too mention that the internet did not exist then, and certainly the younger professionals have had more visibility today as a result of that advance; both positively and negatively. it's more fashionable to have some young gunslinger teaching at your grad program - attracts more students - than some crotchety old person. all you need to do is go to any ivy and see who's teaching what, to know where the profession is heading.
i would also think given the nature of some of the more successful, younger talent, they are less interested in crossing swords or getting into pissing contests with NO about who is more influential or doing "better" or more responsible work; they are probably more concerned with getting and doing work in this ridiculous climate.
i think it's intellectually dishonest to suggest "one special building" made these five great, it's wrong on so many levels.
"i think it's intellectually dishonest to suggest "one special building" made these five great, it's wrong on so many levels."
I am not asserting this at all. Hejduk might have had the biggest impact of all of the five, and he was the one who, as NO says, "retreated" into the academy, which is a terribly stigmatized and unfortunate description of what Hejduk did with his architectural career.
In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I am asserting that this is the "celebrate the monument" attitude in play now for the critic is misguided: he is looking at "influence" all wrong.
And no, I honestly do not believe that Ouroussoff is aware of what is going on in firms making critical steps in the right direction, at all. If he was aware he would not have written the column he did.
My use of the term "net force" could mean, in this case, the distinct impact on the profession that can be traced to the NY Architecture culture.
Like identity this "net force" or impact can't be measured with any precision. However, there are probably clues that suggest its magnitude. For example, we can see the traces of OMA's influence in a whole school of architects around the world. Some of which have emerged as leaders in their own right. Should we argue that this mentorship stifled "diversity of concept" OR that it was a benefit to the profession?
Perhaps diversity works well when it tempers strong voices and clear ideas.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.